>Sure, it's copyrighted, and MS owns it. Does MS have a policy on obsoleted articles like these, and if so, what is it?

KB articles are also considered "support". Since MSFT yanked 2.6 support, I can imagine they'd yank the articles as well. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with the decision, though. As for what the publicly stated policy is, I have no idea, and I wouldn't even know where to look.

> If MS is no longer willing to put up the server space to host them, maybe
>someone else is.

I don't think server space, or its maintanence, is the issue.

>With a lot of people still using 2.x it seems shortsighted to remove self-help resources that, until early this year, were provided free.

Allow me to play the devil's advocate by asking why MSFT would care about whether or not you have access to self-help resources? Because they're nice folks? Maybe, but with most companies, support calls lose money (I know this to be true for two major software companies, so I'm extrapolating). Self-help resources are generally for the company's benefit, not yours (except maybe Oracle; man, just try prying information from them). I really don't know what the real reasons are, but I would imagine Microsoft gains no benefit from providing resources for a non-supported product. I realize that "customer goodwill" might be one of them, but apparently that isn't enough to override other issues.

Again, I'm just trying to SWAG the reasoning behind the policy, and maybe give some insight on why the company might see this as advantageous. This does not constitute an official Microsoft statement, blah, blah, blah. And, no, they're unlikely to change division-wide policy because some product team grunt asked them to. :-)